The Bitcoin File Format
2- There is no doubt as to what the Bitcoin File Format is. It is described in Schedule 2 to the Particulars of Claim. The overall structure of a block comprises three parts:
1) a block header of 80 bytes; (2) the vtx number, of 1-9 bytes, which records the number of transactions in a variable VarInt; and
(3) the transactions recorded in the block, of variable size.
3 - The block header is always 80 bytes but Schedule 2 explains that it comprises various data fields as follows:
i) nVersion, 4 bytes in length comprising a 32 bit unsigned integer stored in little endian and representing the version of the block format;
ii) hashPrevBlock, 32 bytes in length, being a double hash of the previous block header stored in little endian – essentially the link to the previous block in the chain;
iii) hashMerkleRoot, again 32 bytes in length, comprising a double hash of the root of the Merkle tree of transactions stored in little endian;
iv) nTime, a 4 byte field, representing the time in seconds since 1 Jan 1970, in a 32 but unsigned integer in little endian;
v) nBits, a 4 byte field recording a measure of the difficulty target in compact format;
vi) nNonce, a 4 byte field. Nonce is a portmanteau of 'number used only once'. The Nonce is used in the proof of work algorithm and is effectively the number that blockchain miners are solving for.
4 - Schedule 2 goes on to describe the Transactions part of the block. There are two types: normal and 'coinbase' transactions. Further paragraphs in Schedule 2 explain the general structure of a transaction, the structure of an input and an output in a normal transaction (which differ) and the structure of the input in a coinbase transaction (the output having the same structure), in a similar manner to the explanation of the additional structure in the header, which I summarised above. It is not necessary for me to set out these structures.
Copyright
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
2- There is no doubt as to what the Bitcoin File Format is. It is described in Schedule 2 to the Particulars of Claim. The overall structure of a block comprises three parts:
1) a block header of 80 bytes; (2) the vtx number, of 1-9 bytes, which records the number of transactions in a variable VarInt; and
(3) the transactions recorded in the block, of variable size.
3 - The block header is always 80 bytes but Schedule 2 explains that it comprises various data fields as follows:
i) nVersion, 4 bytes in length comprising a 32 bit unsigned integer stored in little endian and representing the version of the block format;
ii) hashPrevBlock, 32 bytes in length, being a double hash of the previous block header stored in little endian – essentially the link to the previous block in the chain;
iii) hashMerkleRoot, again 32 bytes in length, comprising a double hash of the root of the Merkle tree of transactions stored in little endian;
iv) nTime, a 4 byte field, representing the time in seconds since 1 Jan 1970, in a 32 but unsigned integer in little endian;
v) nBits, a 4 byte field recording a measure of the difficulty target in compact format;
vi) nNonce, a 4 byte field. Nonce is a portmanteau of 'number used only once'. The Nonce is used in the proof of work algorithm and is effectively the number that blockchain miners are solving for.
4 - Schedule 2 goes on to describe the Transactions part of the block. There are two types: normal and 'coinbase' transactions. Further paragraphs in Schedule 2 explain the general structure of a transaction, the structure of an input and an output in a normal transaction (which differ) and the structure of the input in a coinbase transaction (the output having the same structure), in a similar manner to the explanation of the additional structure in the header, which I summarised above. It is not necessary for me to set out these structures.
Copyright
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
Copyright
5- The starting point is section 3 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) which provides as follows (and has done at all material times):
'3 Literary, dramatic and musical works
(1) In this Part—
"literary work" means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes—
(a) a table or compilation, and
(b) a computer program;
….
(2) Copyright does not subsist in a literary, …. work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise; and references in this Part to the time at which such a work is made are to the time at which it is so recorded.
(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2) whether the work is recorded by or with the permission of the author; and where it is not recorded by the author, nothing in that subsection affects the question whether copyright subsists in the record as distinct from the work recorded.
6 - Section 3(2) embodies the important concept of fixation. The principle of fixation is of general application and is referred to in both the Berne Convention and in the Rome Convention. However, as is clearly explained in the 18th Edition of Copinger and Skone James on Copyright at 3-36 and 3-161, it is necessary to address the 'not very different' EU requirement of sufficient identifiability, as specified by the CJEU in Case C-310/17 Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV
EU:C:2018:899. In that case (which was concerned with a copyright alleged to subsist in the taste of a spreadable dip containing cream cheese and fresh herbs), the CJEU ruled that for subject matter to be classified as a 'work' within the meaning of the InfoSoc Directive, two cumulative conditions must be satisfied. First, that the subject matter is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation and second, only something which is the expression of the author's own intellectual creation may be classified as a 'work'. In [40]-[41], the CJEU explained:
'40 Accordingly, for there to be a 'work' as referred to in Directive 2001/29, the subject matter protected by copyright must be expressed in a manner which makes it identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity, even though that expression is not necessarily in permanent form.
41 That is because, first, the authorities responsible for ensuring that the exclusive rights inherent in copyright are protected must be able to identify, clearly and precisely, the subject matter so protected. The same is true for individuals, in particular economic operators, who must be able to identify, clearly and precisely, what is the subject matter of protection which third parties, especially competitors, enjoy. Secondly, the need to ensure that there is no element of subjectivity –– given that it is detrimental to legal certainty –– in the process of identifying the protected subject matter means that the latter must be capable of being expressed in a precise and objective manner.'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
5- The starting point is section 3 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) which provides as follows (and has done at all material times):
'3 Literary, dramatic and musical works
(1) In this Part—
"literary work" means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes—
(a) a table or compilation, and
(b) a computer program;
….
(2) Copyright does not subsist in a literary, …. work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise; and references in this Part to the time at which such a work is made are to the time at which it is so recorded.
(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2) whether the work is recorded by or with the permission of the author; and where it is not recorded by the author, nothing in that subsection affects the question whether copyright subsists in the record as distinct from the work recorded.
6 - Section 3(2) embodies the important concept of fixation. The principle of fixation is of general application and is referred to in both the Berne Convention and in the Rome Convention. However, as is clearly explained in the 18th Edition of Copinger and Skone James on Copyright at 3-36 and 3-161, it is necessary to address the 'not very different' EU requirement of sufficient identifiability, as specified by the CJEU in Case C-310/17 Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV
EU:C:2018:899. In that case (which was concerned with a copyright alleged to subsist in the taste of a spreadable dip containing cream cheese and fresh herbs), the CJEU ruled that for subject matter to be classified as a 'work' within the meaning of the InfoSoc Directive, two cumulative conditions must be satisfied. First, that the subject matter is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation and second, only something which is the expression of the author's own intellectual creation may be classified as a 'work'. In [40]-[41], the CJEU explained:
'40 Accordingly, for there to be a 'work' as referred to in Directive 2001/29, the subject matter protected by copyright must be expressed in a manner which makes it identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity, even though that expression is not necessarily in permanent form.
41 That is because, first, the authorities responsible for ensuring that the exclusive rights inherent in copyright are protected must be able to identify, clearly and precisely, the subject matter so protected. The same is true for individuals, in particular economic operators, who must be able to identify, clearly and precisely, what is the subject matter of protection which third parties, especially competitors, enjoy. Secondly, the need to ensure that there is no element of subjectivity –– given that it is detrimental to legal certainty –– in the process of identifying the protected subject matter means that the latter must be capable of being expressed in a precise and objective manner.'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
Forwarded from 2009 Database ownership (Ramon Quesada.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
7 - On the facts here, any difference between fixation and sufficient identifiability (and I am unable to identify any) seems to me to have no bearing whatsoever on my decision. However, as will be seen below, I have reminded myself of certain points which emerge from SAS No.3 at [29], namely: (i) it may be important to distinguish between the putative work on the one hand and any particular fixation of the work on the other hand; (ii) the fixation must not be confused with the work and (iii) the fact that one can identify a fixation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the subsistence of copyright.
8 - There is no doubt that a wide variety of subject matter can qualify as a literary work. It has long been recognised that the term 'literary work' includes computer software but also that, in order to constitute a 'literary work' the work need not be comprehensible by a human. Counsel also reminded me of the point that the categories of 'work' in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 may not be compatible with EU law, being capable of being too restrictive in certain cases. I do not consider that point has any application here. Certainly, my conclusion in this judgment does not depend on categorisation.
9 - In line with the indication above, for the purposes of this application I assume that Dr Wright created the Bitcoin File Format and it was the product of his own intellectual creation. As already stated, there is no doubt about the structure of a Bitcoin Block,
Caselaw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
8 - There is no doubt that a wide variety of subject matter can qualify as a literary work. It has long been recognised that the term 'literary work' includes computer software but also that, in order to constitute a 'literary work' the work need not be comprehensible by a human. Counsel also reminded me of the point that the categories of 'work' in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 may not be compatible with EU law, being capable of being too restrictive in certain cases. I do not consider that point has any application here. Certainly, my conclusion in this judgment does not depend on categorisation.
9 - In line with the indication above, for the purposes of this application I assume that Dr Wright created the Bitcoin File Format and it was the product of his own intellectual creation. As already stated, there is no doubt about the structure of a Bitcoin Block,
Caselaw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html
Application of UK database rights to forking and blockchain technology
Dr. Craig Wright
Oct 23, 2023
https://coingeek.com/application-of-uk-database-rights-to-forking-and-blockchain-technology/
"This analysis explores the application of U.K. database rights in the context of ‘forking’ and blockchain technologies. It examines the legal framework surrounding database rights under U.K. law, analyzes the challenges posed by forking in the context of database rights, and discusses the implications of blockchain technology on the protection of databases...."
Dr. Craig Wright
Oct 23, 2023
https://coingeek.com/application-of-uk-database-rights-to-forking-and-blockchain-technology/
"This analysis explores the application of U.K. database rights in the context of ‘forking’ and blockchain technologies. It examines the legal framework surrounding database rights under U.K. law, analyzes the challenges posed by forking in the context of database rights, and discusses the implications of blockchain technology on the protection of databases...."
CoinGeek
Application of UK database rights to forking and blockchain technology
This analysis explores the application of U.K. database rights in the context of ‘forking’ and blockchain technologies and examines the legal framework surrounding database rights under U.K. law.
There is no such thing as "hard forks" or "soft forks". What there is, is copying the database and then sticking on a different name.
There are laws for things like that.
The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/contents
Meaning of “database”
6. After section 3 insert—
“Databases
3A.—(1) In this Part “database” means a collection of independent works, data or other materials which—
(a)are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and
(b)are individually accessible by electronic or other means.
(2) For the purposes of this Part a literary work consisting of a database is original if, and only if, by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database the database constitutes the author’s own intellectual creation.”.
#Bitcoin is a database.
https://x.com/JoelDalais/status/1668990545505517571?s=20
There are laws for things like that.
The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/contents
Meaning of “database”
6. After section 3 insert—
“Databases
3A.—(1) In this Part “database” means a collection of independent works, data or other materials which—
(a)are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and
(b)are individually accessible by electronic or other means.
(2) For the purposes of this Part a literary work consisting of a database is original if, and only if, by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database the database constitutes the author’s own intellectual creation.”.
#Bitcoin is a database.
https://x.com/JoelDalais/status/1668990545505517571?s=20
www.legislation.gov.uk
The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997
These Regulations implement the provisions of Council Directive No. 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 (O.J. No. L77, 27.3.96, page 20) on the legal protection of databases (“the Directive”). The Regulations come into force on 1st January 1998.
Forwarded from CSW - Slack Channel (Ramon Quesada.)
" Bitcoin is developed under an open-source model and released under the MIT License (Wright, 2008; MIT, n.d.). As an open-source project, the Bitcoin source code is publicly accessible, allowing users to examine, modify, and distribute it within the terms of the MIT License. Yet, it is important to emphasize that being open source does not mean that Bitcoin is in the public domain. The public domain refers to works that are not protected by intellectual property rights, but Bitcoin’s open-source status does not negate its intellectual property protections (Laurent, 2004). While the Bitcoin source code is freely available, it remains subject to copyright protection (Stokes, 2019). It is crucial to understand that copyright and open-source licensing coexist, allowing individuals to exercise their rights and obligations under the MIT License while preserving the intellectual property rights associated with Bitcoin (Lindberg, 2008). What is more, it is worth noting that other forms of intellectual property, such as database rights, operate independently from copyright and may have their own legal implications (Coleman, 2009)...."
Annotated Bibliography: Open Source and Development
By Craig Wright
06 Dec 2023 | Bitcoin & Blockchain Tech
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/annotated-bibliography-open-source-and-development/?s=09
Annotated Bibliography: Open Source and Development
By Craig Wright
06 Dec 2023 | Bitcoin & Blockchain Tech
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/annotated-bibliography-open-source-and-development/?s=09
Craig Wright
Annotated Bibliography: Open Source and Development
Bitcoin is developed under an open-source model and released under the MIT License (Wright, 2008; MIT, n.d.). As an open-source
Forwarded from 2008 Satoshi Nakamoto SN (Ramon Quesada.)
Built on the Foundation of Different Legal Principles
Understanding the distinction between open source and the public domain is essential when discussing Bitcoin and its associated intellectual property rights. Bitcoin’s open-source nature, as permitted by the MIT License, fosters collaboration, innovation, and transparency within the Bitcoin community.
Yet, it is crucial to recognize that the concept of open source does not equate to the public domain. The public domain encompasses works that are not subject to intellectual property rights, while Bitcoin’s open-source status operates within the framework of copyright protection. Hence the copyright is very clearly stated on the white paper.
This differentiation has legal implications, as the open-source licensing of Bitcoin allows users to access, modify, and distribute the source code but does not relinquish the intellectual property rights associated with Bitcoin and its development. It is important to navigate such legal complexities, considering that other forms of intellectual property, including database rights, operate independently from copyright and may have their own legal considerations.
Recognizing the nuances between open source, copyright, and other intellectual property rights is crucial for developers, users, businesses, and the broader Bitcoin community to ensure compliance, foster innovation, build on a solid foundation and respect the intellectual property protections embedded in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
4:28 PM · Dec 12, 2023
·https://x.com/satoshi/status/1734596191772361191?s=20
Understanding the distinction between open source and the public domain is essential when discussing Bitcoin and its associated intellectual property rights. Bitcoin’s open-source nature, as permitted by the MIT License, fosters collaboration, innovation, and transparency within the Bitcoin community.
Yet, it is crucial to recognize that the concept of open source does not equate to the public domain. The public domain encompasses works that are not subject to intellectual property rights, while Bitcoin’s open-source status operates within the framework of copyright protection. Hence the copyright is very clearly stated on the white paper.
This differentiation has legal implications, as the open-source licensing of Bitcoin allows users to access, modify, and distribute the source code but does not relinquish the intellectual property rights associated with Bitcoin and its development. It is important to navigate such legal complexities, considering that other forms of intellectual property, including database rights, operate independently from copyright and may have their own legal considerations.
Recognizing the nuances between open source, copyright, and other intellectual property rights is crucial for developers, users, businesses, and the broader Bitcoin community to ensure compliance, foster innovation, build on a solid foundation and respect the intellectual property protections embedded in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
4:28 PM · Dec 12, 2023
·https://x.com/satoshi/status/1734596191772361191?s=20
One trusted ledger, trusted data ownership and low fees: BSV has it all, says Owen Vaughan 19 APRIL 2023 Jon Southurst https://coingeek.com/one-trusted-ledger-trusted-data-ownership-and-low-fees-bsv-has-it-all-says-owen-vaughan/
CoinGeek
One trusted ledger, trusted data ownership and low fees: BSV has it all, says Owen Vaughan
BSV blockchain proves that its three main features—unalterable base protocol rules, unbounded scaling, and low usage fees—would help the world develop a better internet and Web3 space.
reclamaciones de derechos de bases de datos, ( Reclamación No. IL-2022-000069), una oferta no negociable para resolver cada uno de estos casos, que se reproduce en su totalidad a continuación.
En una clara demostración de la sinceridad de mi oferta, acepto renunciar a mis derechos de base de datos y derechos de autor relacionados con las bases de datos BTC, BCH y ABC, y a ofrecer una licencia irrevocable a perpetuidad a mis partes opuestas que colectivamente controlan, operan y/o poseen dichas bases de datos, en pos de fomentar la comercialización abierta de tecnologías en un mercado competitivo y justo, donde los derechos de propiedad intelectual sean respetados y explotados. Mi intención es que esta oferta les permita competir de forma justa, en paralelo con BSV.
https://foro.bsvespanol.org/t/el-dr-craig-wright-presenta-una-oferta-de-acuerdo-a-los-miembros-de-la-copa-y-a-todas-las-partes-en-el-proximo-litigio-de-propiedad-intelectual/357
En una clara demostración de la sinceridad de mi oferta, acepto renunciar a mis derechos de base de datos y derechos de autor relacionados con las bases de datos BTC, BCH y ABC, y a ofrecer una licencia irrevocable a perpetuidad a mis partes opuestas que colectivamente controlan, operan y/o poseen dichas bases de datos, en pos de fomentar la comercialización abierta de tecnologías en un mercado competitivo y justo, donde los derechos de propiedad intelectual sean respetados y explotados. Mi intención es que esta oferta les permita competir de forma justa, en paralelo con BSV.
https://foro.bsvespanol.org/t/el-dr-craig-wright-presenta-una-oferta-de-acuerdo-a-los-miembros-de-la-copa-y-a-todas-las-partes-en-el-proximo-litigio-de-propiedad-intelectual/357
BSV en Español
El Dr. Craig Wright presenta una oferta de acuerdo a los miembros de la COPA y a todas las partes en el próximo litigio de propiedad…
Por Craig Wright | 24 de enero de 2024 | Bitcoin y tecnología blockchain En febrero, debo enfrentarme a un grupo de individuos y entidades corporativas en el Tribunal Superior de Londres, donde tengo la intención de defender mis derechos de propiedad intelectual…
@WhaleChart
Strange that you do not publish the possible effects of the Database and copyright claim I just won the right to run.
After all.
The results of this (if BTC Core Don't agree on a licence before the case) is a global injunction which will make mining, exchanging or having a BTC business a crime.
https://x.com/Dr_CSWright/status/1623573369655291906?s=20
And, this will be enforced in the UK, USA, EU and Cn.
Seems strange to downplay this?
watch and learn
They fail to understand, China and USA allow UK judgments to be enforced.
CSW
Feb 9, 2023
https://x.com/Dr_CSWright/status/1623573369655291906?s=20
Strange that you do not publish the possible effects of the Database and copyright claim I just won the right to run.
After all.
The results of this (if BTC Core Don't agree on a licence before the case) is a global injunction which will make mining, exchanging or having a BTC business a crime.
https://x.com/Dr_CSWright/status/1623573369655291906?s=20
And, this will be enforced in the UK, USA, EU and Cn.
Seems strange to downplay this?
watch and learn
They fail to understand, China and USA allow UK judgments to be enforced.
CSW
Feb 9, 2023
https://x.com/Dr_CSWright/status/1623573369655291906?s=20
X (formerly Twitter)
Dr Craig S Wright (@Dr_CSWright) on X
After all.
The results of this (if BTC Core Don't agree on a licence before the case) is a global injunction which will make mining, exchanging or having a BTC business a crime.
The results of this (if BTC Core Don't agree on a licence before the case) is a global injunction which will make mining, exchanging or having a BTC business a crime.
Respected UK Lawyer Tackles the Craig Wright Satoshi Trial Controversy and Patents
1h
Gavin Mehl
18 feb 2024
Join patent expert David Pearce as he sits down with Gavin Mehl to discuss hot topics like nChain's controversial patents, Craig Wright's Satoshi claims, and the landmark COPA vs Wright lawsuit.
As a UK attorney, David lends his insights into the British justice system's influence on this Bitcoin trial of the century overseas. Get his take on courtroom antics and candid dinner conversation with presiding Judge Mellor before the case started.
Min 32
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RoHJiPNmGDA&si=pctEYM_CcjYkc21s
1h
Gavin Mehl
18 feb 2024
Join patent expert David Pearce as he sits down with Gavin Mehl to discuss hot topics like nChain's controversial patents, Craig Wright's Satoshi claims, and the landmark COPA vs Wright lawsuit.
As a UK attorney, David lends his insights into the British justice system's influence on this Bitcoin trial of the century overseas. Get his take on courtroom antics and candid dinner conversation with presiding Judge Mellor before the case started.
Min 32
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RoHJiPNmGDA&si=pctEYM_CcjYkc21s
YouTube
Respected UK Lawyer Tackles the Craig Wright Satoshi Trial Controversy and Patents
Join patent expert David Pearce as he sits down with Gavin Mehl to discuss hot topics like nChain's controversial patents, Craig Wright's Satoshi claims, and the landmark COPA vs Wright lawsuit.
As a UK attorney, David lends his insights into the British…
As a UK attorney, David lends his insights into the British…
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Respetado abogado del Reino Unido aborda la controversia y las patentes del juicio de Craig Wright Satoshi
1h
Gavin Mehl
18 de febrero de 2024
Min 32
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RoHJiPNmGDA&si=pctEYM_CcjYkc21s
1h
Gavin Mehl
18 de febrero de 2024
Únase al experto en patentes David Pearce mientras se sienta con Gavin Mehl para discutir temas candentes como las controvertidas patentes de nChain, las afirmaciones de Satoshi de Craig Wright y la histórica demanda COPA vs Wright.
Como abogado del Reino Unido, David aporta sus conocimientos sobre la influencia del sistema de justicia británico en este juicio del siglo sobre Bitcoin en el extranjero. Obtenga su opinión sobre las travesuras en la sala del tribunal y la conversación sincera durante la cena con el juez Mellor antes de que comenzara el caso
Min 32
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RoHJiPNmGDA&si=pctEYM_CcjYkc21s